It's not often you have to spell things out probably because people don't ask you to explain or prove the crap you posted.

Lets go through this through stages (spell things out as you like to say):

a) Sam has never said if he wins he will donate the money to charity. So if you agree with he's never said it why did you post it?

b) He is not promoting deaf people. They're not a forgotten species that once roamed the earth and are now on the endangered list *rolls eyes*.

c) Why the **** would he go on a game show to promote a disability anyway? Is it something people can buy? Is this some marketing ploy for those that are sick of having 100% full hearing?

d) Sam said he wanted to make people more aware of the disability of deafness and what those who have the disability have to overcome in life. (Think he's accomplished this with the amount of HM's that gave him a wide berth because it was too much like hard work to actually have a conversation with him - hats off to some HM's who have bothered though).

e) He has ONLY said that he wants to give talks to kids who have a hearing disability, so that he can help them to realise what he's accomplished (being playing sports, a BB contestant, etc), so they too can accomplish anything they want.

e) If he were to win (hypothetically), why should he give the money to ANY charity? He has said what he hopes to accomplish (see e above if that helps) and with the help of some of the prize money (again hypothetically, should he win) he can accomplish this.

You said no such thing in retrospect or irony (?). You are only saying that now because I questioned your post and asked you to explain. You jumped on the Sam hate bandwagon and posted a load of drivel!

This was confirmed to me when, given the opportunity, you couldn't explain or prove it. So now you just revert back to the sarcasm and the old chestnut of "retrospect, irony and supposition".

Nice try though.


PS. Just wanted to point out to you that Sam is 'a storeman from Wales' FFS. It's just that he's got a hearing disability which is very noticable with his hearing aids and speech so he really couldn't ****ing hide that fact from you or anyone could he.

Family declining to comment. HHmmm. If someone told tales about my loved one I'd defend the truth and if serious sue. Oh well :joker:

Defend something written in the Daily Star?

Takes all kinds I suppose!

Serious question: do you think Sam will take libel action against the DS when he gets out?

He could get more than the BB prize fund if the DS has printed an untruth.

If you think he won't, you have to ask yourself why not! ;)

Don't know and don't care. Just the same as I don't care about any of the other HM's and what low life journalist from the Daily Star make up.... sorry....write about them after they've left the house.

Maybe he will and maybe he won't because he couldn't be arsed?

But he's not out yet, and by the time he is and BB is all over, everyone will forget anyway.... I'm certainly not going to check up on whether he did or didn't that's up to him. But you can if you want to.

Just want to add - somebody worked out that this was quite an old article. Maybe they have given a comment but because of the situation (eviction/betting) Daily Star have chosen not to include it?

Sam won't be suing the Daily Star... it'd take all the prize money to pay for that kind of litigation.

Anyhoo... lovin' your work on this thread Marmalite.

LMAO! Couldn't be arsed...... for probably tens of thousands? :D Oh come on! Sam would just need to get a 'no win - no fee' lawyer and he could be quids in.

What about the publican quoted? Have the DS lied about what he said? If so, he too could take libel action.

Sorry but there is only one conclusion: it may be in the Daily Star but there is no way that rag's lawyers would let an article like this be printed if it wasn't provable.

Was in the Star today, guess they're just a bit out of date or made an error with their odds or something

I without being bragging in any way, can happily say I treat the Daily Stars headlines as the rubbish they likely are.

It is amazing though, how all the Dexter stories so far this series have been rubbished as nonsense,likely very rightly so too,however a headline negative as to Sam is paraded as gospel in that paper.

That would have to then give some creedence to the Dexter stories if this one is suddenly now, (because it suits), being presented as fact as to Sam by anyone.
Unbelievable double standards.

From both sides, in all honesty.

Some who dislike Dexter have for weeks clung to the negative stories about him in the rags. Yet now dont believe this.

And some who like Dexter rubbished his stories, and now believe this.

Lets not pretend the double standards are all one sided :wink:

Hold on one tiny second! :D

Saying Dexter is not the PR guru he claims to be or that Gina is not rich is a different scale of things to saying Sam is a violent lout.

Hopefully you can see that?

why weren't the cops called

It says he hit them "because they got in the way of his shots" so he could be meaning that he deliberately was hitting them with his backswing or something instead of asking them to move

. if you want the truth I suggest you scan down the page at some of the replies

My post categorically stated that I myself had never given any creedence at all as to the Daily Star stories, I have been 100% consistent on that.
For me it is as bad as the Sun with the rubbish it prints as to people.

However, for those who have said the stories about Dexter were wrong in the rubbish paper to now be presenting as gospel a story against Sam or anyone in fact, not just Sam, that is to me double standards.
That was my point.

Clearly you again don't agree with me as to that but never the less, I have been totally consistent in never giving any attention to, or creedence to, any nonsensical Daily Star story whatsoever as to the housemates,even during the hazel/Daley saga.

If the story has any truth to it, this seems much more likely. Its still quite rude to not just say excuse me though..most people would move for you to take your shot. No need to jab em in the ear with the cue :laugh:

I have never understood why most pubs have a pool table so close to the seating though :bored:

read the replies to the story

Whatever he has been doing it was sufficient for Sam to get banned from his local pub.

I'm betting none of the other housemates can wear that badge of pride! ;)

Joey I am not saying that you had ever believed a star article (I give you much more credit than that :p ). I was just pointing out that the double standards you mentioned go both ways.

I think its ridiculous for anyone to believe the star when it comes to BB really. If we were to listen to it, BB has had terrorist threads and MI5 storming the house and such :joker:

So then maybe Sam will get a no win no fee lawyer or maybe he won't. What the **** does it have to do with me? You asked me I responded in the manner I saw fit.

Why don't you persue this for your own gratification? Don't forget to get Sam's version of the story as well though, you know to be fair and all that. You have to wait though as he's currently in the BB house as you know. But because of this smear campaign (which may or may not be 100% true and full of accurate facts) you just may not have to wait too much longer.

In this world there are journalists and then there are twonks who think they are journalists because they ask a couple of questions, get a couple of names and then stretch the truth to fit their needs at the time and pay off the victim once the newpaper or magazine reaps the profits.

The ear is not the part of the anatomy that is most likely to get jabbed. :joker:

With a pool cue, it is :suspect:

Ear or back of the head, or forehead

Depending on how long you are.

Thank you!

I love threads like this, where fans of the housemate concerned wriggle and twist, rather than face reality! ;)

OK, I will make my prediction and everyone is welcome to throw it back in my face if I turn out to be wrong. :D

I predict that Sam will neither sue the Daily Star nor even make a complaint to the press supervisory body.

Why do I say this? Because the Daily Star is a national newspaper. It is not Private Eye. The DS literally cannot afford to accuse someone of being a violent pub lout unless they are at least 99% sure of the accuracy of the story. They could be taken to the cleaners, if they have got it wrong or have made it up.

The press can - and will - make up all sorts of stories, but accusing a person of (in effect) criminality is a very serious matter. I will venture to suggest this story has been vetted at the highest editorial and management levels... maybe even by Richard Desmond himself, given his ownership of both the Daily Star and Channel 5.